COMMUNION
WITHOUT CONFESSION AND THE 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW
A
CURIOUS QUSTIONS INDEED
In
issue no.1, 1995, of Vita Pastorale, the Paulinians’
journal intended for parish priests and other “pastoral
workers,” a priest, asks what meaning is to be given to
St. Albert the Great’s famous phrase:
The
Eucharist [i.e., Holy Communion] is, above all,
useful for the remission of sins and most profitable for
those spiritually dead.
In
this instance, it is quite clear that Albert the Great is
referring to the Eucharist as sacrifice (Holy Mass), rather
than as sacrament (Holy Communion). St. Thomas Aquinas states:
The
Holy Eucharist is, at the same time, both sacrifice and
sacrament: it has the nature of sacrifice insofar as it
is an offering and has the nature of sacrament in view
of the fact that it is received.1
Therefore
the Eucharist may be offered (i.e., Holy Mass) even
for those spiritually dead but, by divine right, it (i.e.,
Holy Communion) can only be received by those in the state
of sanctifying grace because:
...in
the Eucharist we receive our Lord Jesus Christ as spiritual
nourishment and which is not to be given to those dead
in sin.2
Also,
in order to receive Holy Communion, the state of grace obtained
through a perfect act of contrition remains insufficient
because, as St. Thomas observes:
...a
person cannot know with certainty if he is indeed and
truly contrite.3
What
is required, therefore, is the state of grace obtained through
sacramental confession by which are forgiven all of their
sins, even the sins of those having but an imperfect contrition;
that is, one inspired not by the love of God, but only by
the fear of eternal as well as temporal punishment, or simply
owing to the wretchedness of sin.
A
SHOCKING ANSWER
At
the outset, Silvano Sirboni's answer in Vita Pastorale
seems to be heading in an orthodox direction: St. Albert
the Great is simply expressing the Church's constant doctrine
solemnly confirmed by the "Council of Trent in its
session on the Mass." Immediately following this, however,
Don Sirboni begins to speak of the Eucharist as communion
and then, shortly afterwards, invites disaster!
After
having come to the conclusion that:
...forgiveness
of sin is rooted in Jesus Christ's sacrifice made present
through the celebration of the Eucharist...
Sirboni
continues:
It
is for this reason that Card. Cajetan, in 1525, even before
the Council of Trent, could write: 'The person receiving
Holy Communion without having repented of his mortal sin
or sins does, indeed, sin mortally…On the other hand,
one who [in the state of mortal sin] received Holy Communion
without going to sacramental confession beforehand, if
he has a reasonable motive for so doing, is excused since
the precept of confessing oneself before receiving Holy
Communion is not of divine right' (Summa de peccatis...fol.24).
It is upon this theological truth, never doubted, that
canon 916 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is based. This
canon also allows a person [in the state of mortal sin]
to receive Holy Communion simply by first making a perfect
act of contrition prior to taking the Eucharist.
A
VERY GRAVE OMISSION
We
note immediately that Don Sirboni has given here a very
poor resume or rendition of canon 916 of the 1983 Code
of Canon Law. According to his answer, as stated above,
the one and only condition required by a person in mortal
sin to receive Holy Communion after an act of perfect contrition
without prior sacramental confession, would simply consist
in the lack of opportunity of going to confession. Now,
this is absolutely false and is not at all in keeping with
the Church's constant teaching nor even with the 1983
Code of Canon Law. St. Alphonsus points out that:
...whoever
is in the state of mortal sin must, under pain of yet
still another mortal sin, go to sacramental confession
before receiving Holy Communion if there be no necessity
of celebrating Mass, or of receiving Holy Communion and
that there be no confessor available (both circumstances
must exist simultaneously in order to excuse the omission
of prior confession according to the Council of Trent).4
Fr.
Augustine Lehmkuhl, SJ., [(1834-1918) who taught Scripture
and Moral Theology at Ditton Hall, Great Britain-Ed.]
makes it even clearer:
For
this to be permitted, both the possibility of sacramental
confession must be lacking, and the necessity (necessitas)
of celebrating Mass and of receiving Holy Communion must
be present at the same time. If these two conditions are
not both present at the very same time, anyone (in the
state of mortal sin) receiving the Holy Eucharist without
confession is guilty of a sacrilege.5
[Theologia
Moralis, from which the above excerpt was taken, was
first published in 1883 as Fr. Lehmkuhl's major work applying
the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus de
Ligouri to contemporary problems in moral theology - Ed.]
The
1983 Code of Canon Law, as a matter of fact, lays
down yet another essential condition which, however, would
require a longer and more detailed exposition.
A
NOVELTY
Herein
lies the novelty: the 1983 Code of Canon Law no longer mentions
necessitas, but gravis ratio instead. Canon
807 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stipulated:
A
priest conscious of having committed a mortal sin, even
though he considers himself to have true contrition, may
not celebrate Holy Mass without first availing himself
of sacramental confession; if, in the absence of a confessor
and [simultaneously] in a case of necessity, and after
having made a perfect act of contrition, he has indeed
celebrated, he will go to sacramental confession as soon
as possible.
In
canon 856, we find that this is equally true for lay persons:
Anyone
having a mortal sin weighing on his conscience must not
receive Holy Communion without first having recourse to
sacramental confession, even though he considers himself
to have true contrition; in the case of necessity and
in the absence of a confessor, he must first make a perfect
act of contrition.
By
limiting ourselves to these two canons in particular, only
a state of urgent necessity simultaneously joined to the
impossibility of going to sacramental confession can excuse
the precept of prior confession (but not the obligation
of having immediate recourse to a perfect act of contrition).
Both
canonists and moralists give, an as example of urgent necessity,
the case of a priest who is duty bound to celebrate in order
to provide or ensure Mass for his flock on Sundays or holy
days; or to celebrate, in the absence of consecrated hosts
in order to give viaticum to a dying person or one in danger
of death. There is also the possible case of a lay person
who, just on the point of receiving Holy Communion, remembers
an unconfessed mortal sin, or also the extraordinary case
where one must save the Eucharist from profanation. It is
quite obvious, and moralists do note this fact, that the
urgent necessity of a lay person receiving Communion occurs
much more rarely than that of celebrating Mass in the case
of a priest.6
When
we speak here of the unavailability of a confessor, we must
not understand this to mean the absence of one's usual confessor
or the one whom one simply prefers….It means the unavailability
of an authorized confessor at that time and place or the
impossibility of reaching him elsewhere due to circumstances
beyond one's will or control.7
In
conformity with the democratic conception of the "people
of God," canon 916 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law,
on the contrary, making no distinction whatever between
priests and the ordinary faithful, states:
May
no one conscious of being in the state of mortal sin dare
to celebrate Mass nor receive Holy Communion without first
going to sacramental confession, unless there be a grave
reason and there be truly no possibility of going to confession
[nisi adsit gravis ratio et deficiat opportunitas confitendi];
in which case one is to remember that he must make a perfect
act of contrition which includes the firm intention of
going to sacramental confession as soon as possible.
This
new formulation or wording presents a notable watering-down
of terms: nisi adsit gravis ratio instead of the
si urgeat necessitas of the 1917 Code of Canon
Law. According to this attenuation or weakening of expression,
it would no longer now be an urgent necessity, but simply
a grave reason together with impossibility of going to confession
(a situation not mentioned by Don Sirboni) which would,
henceforth, be deemed sufficient to allow one to receive
Holy Communion following a perfect act of contrition, without
first going to confession, but with the intention of confessing
oneself sacramentally as soon as possible (a condition also
left unmentioned in Don Sirboni's answer).
Now,
the expression of "grave reason" is definitely
of less weight than that of urgent necessity. In fact, the
word "necessity" signifies the impossibility of
acting in any other way without causing grave harm or injury
to oneself or to others. Thus, the priest could not avoid
saying Mass for the faithful on Sundays and Holy Days of
obligation without harm to souls nor without a real danger
of infamy or disgrace to himself, while the faithful in
the state of mortal sin could not leave the altar rail without
causing grave harm to his good reputation. In short, necessity
means a conflict between two duties (i.e., towards others
and towards oneself), and a situation or something inescapable
which the expression "grave reason" does not necessarily
have:
That
is necessary which one cannot avoid or of which one cannot
do without.
...and
therefore canon 807 (of the 1917 Code of Canon Law)
settles the conflict between the legal regulation forbidding
a priest from celebrating Mass while still in the state
of mortal sin (i.e., without first going to sacramental
confession) and his obligation of celebrating, at the same
time, without having first gone to confession (i.e., while
he is still in the state of mortal sin). This canon allows
one to overlook this interdiction at a time when the priest
finds himself in an urgent necessity of celebrating Mass….
Also necessary in such a case would be that such necessity
be accompanied at the same time by the lack of a confessor
and that before celebrating the priest strive to the utmost
to recover the state of grace by means of a perfect act
of contrition (Naz, Dictionnaire de droit canonique,
word necessite, cf. word excuse). Likewise, canon
856 resolved the conflict of duties in which a lay person
should find himself. Such circumstances would be much rarer
indeed in the case of lay persons.
A
SERIOUS QUESTION
The
1917 Code of Canon Law took up again substantially
the teachings of the {doctrinal and therefore infallible)
Council of Trent (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1646, 1647)
which summed up the constant doctrinal teaching of the Church:
For
this reason we must remind those intending to receive
Holy Communion of the commandment found in St. Paul's
Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:28): "But let
a man prove himself and so let him eat of that Bread,
and drink of the Chalice." The traditional and immemorial
custom of the Church has always been unmistakably clear
on this question: let a person wishing to receive Holy
Communion truly examine his conscience and if he be in
the state of mortal sin, let him not receive Holy Communion
(no matter how contrite he may consider himself to be)
without first availing himself of sacramental confession.
That
same holy council also decreed that this must always be
observed by all Christians, even by priests duty-bound
to celebrate, provided that they have prior recourse to
sacramental confession. That if, by reason of a case of
urgent necessity, a priest be obliged to celebrate without
the possibility of going to confession, let him avail
himself of sacramental confession as soon as at all possible.8
Canon
11 of that same session punishes with excommunication those
who would dare teach, preach, affirm or publicly uphold
the contrary. Canons 807 and 856 of the 1917 Code of
Canon Law, therefore, are firmly based on the constant
practice of the Church, and solemnly reaffirmed by the Council
of Trent. On the contrary, just on what does canon 916 of
the 1983 Code of Canon Law base itself in order to
abolish in fact the categorical and doctrinal prescription
of the Council of Trent? Let him answer who thinks he can.
A
BIASED QUOTATION
Sirboni
maintains:
God's
forgiveness is rooted in Christ's sacrifice made present
through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. It is for
this reason that Card. Cajetan could write in 1525, even
before the Council of Trent (1545-1563): "He who
receives Holy Communion without having repented of his
mortal sin(s), sins mortally yet again…. On the other
hand, he who communicates without first having confessed
his mortal sin(s) and has a reasonable cause for doing
so, is excused since the precept of going to sacramental
confession before receiving Holy Communion is not of divine
right" (Summa de peccatis...fol.24). It is
upon this theological truth, which has never been brought
up for discussion, that canon 916 of the 1983 Code
of Canon Law is founded….
But
just what is meant by "that theological truth which
has never been brought up for discussion" upon which
canon 916 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law pretends
to be based? This is not at all clear.
If
it is a question of the fact that…:
...divine
forgiveness is rooted in Christ's sacrifice made present
in the celebration of Holy Mass...
...it
also must be observed that given that Christ's sacrifice
is the root of divine forgiveness it is also just as true
that Communion is not the branch from which is plucked the
divine forgiveness of one's mortal sins, but Baptism and
after Baptism, sacramental confession.
If,
on the contrary, the…:
...theological
truth, which has never been brought up for discussion...
…is
Card. Cajetan’s second sentence:
On
the other hand, he who communicates without having confessed
his mortal sin(s)...
...several
observations must be made at this point.
If
Cajetan, as Sirboni leads us to understand, wrote before
the Council of Trent, why doesn't Sirboni quote the Tridentine
text directly, which carries much more authority and which
he has referred to above? The fact is that Cajetan does
not say exactly the same thing as does the Council of Trent.
Above all, because he speaks of a "reasonable cause"
which draws him closer to the 1983 Code of Canon Law
and not of an "urgent necessity," and especially
because of his affirmation where he maintains that..:
...the
precept of going to sacramental confession before receiving
Holy Communion is not a precept or law of divine right...
...a
position never held by the doctrinal Council of Trent. Quite
on the contrary, most theologians consider that that Council
held the exact opposite view.
Thus
does St. Alphonsus sum up this question:
Some
people say that the precept of confession [before Holy
Communion for the person conscious of a mortal sin, even
though truly contrite [is only of an ecclesiastical origin
and they deduct this argument from these words of the
Council of Trent: "Those wishing to receive Holy
Communion must keep in mind his [i.e., the Apostle's]
commandment" [which consists in examining one's conscience
in order not to eat and drink one's own condemnation].
However, the common and true judgment, held by Suarez,...by
Lugo and others, teaches that this precept is indeed divine.
And the reason being that, on the one hand it results
from the fact that one's examination of conscience must
precede one's receiving Holy Communion on account of Christ's
law, given that the Apostle (i.e., St. Paul) testifies
that he received it directly from our Lord; on the other
hand, from this same Council, it is clearly shown that
the self-examination required consists in sacramental
confession. In fact, even if the eius praeceptum
["his commandment"] did refer to St. Paul, as
it seems most probable to Lugo, nevertheless that Council
of Trent never said that this commandment has been introduced
by way of ecclesiastical usage (declarat=clarifies)
and that confession is therefore commanded by a divine
precept or law. And the fact that it is called the Apostle's
command presents no problem whatever, since in reality
it is simply a precept [or law] of Christ promulgated
by St. Paul [His apostle].9
IT
IS A PRECEPT OF DIVINE LAW
At
any rate, Card. Cajetan's judgment, as chosen by Sirboni
to uphold canon 916 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law,
is not at all the judgment commonly shared by theologians
and canonists who, in their majority, consider that the
commandment being discussed here is indeed of divine right,
that it is from God Himself:
In
the case of a priest who has fallen into the state of
mortal sin: not only is he required to regain the state
of grace as soon as possible, but this state of grace
must be attained through sacramental confession. Therefore,
any priest having fallen into mortal sin and then later,
by a perfect act of contrition, recovers the state of
grace, must not because of this, [dare to] celebrate Holy
Mass. This absolute prohibition does not originate from
the commandment calling for the state of grace, but from
a new and special commandment of divine right, according
to the most commonly held doctrine of theologians.10
And
Fr. Cappello, SJ.:
Doctors
are wondering whether the commandment of going to confession
before receiving Holy Communion is of human or of divine
origin. The most commonly held judgment and, in my view,
the most certainly true and trustworthy one, is to consider
this command as being of divine right.11
In
a footnote he cites Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez, St. Alphonsus.
In the Dizionario di Diritto Canonico it says:
As
genuine as contrition may be, is not sufficient except
in the case of urgent necessity .The decision taken by
the Fathers of the Council of Trent leaves absolutely
no room for doubt. Is this commandment of divine or of
ecclesiastical origin? The great majority of authors consider
that the commandment of first availing oneself of the
sacrament of confession before approaching Holy Communion
is of divine origin.12
Those
of the minority who do not share this view appeal not only
to that argument refuted by St. Alphonsus as described above,
but also to the vague and general character of St. Paul's
text quoted by the Council of Trent: "But let a man
prove himself." The Pauline text, they claim, is not
explicit (Cf. Naz Dictionnaire de Droit Canon, cit.
col. 1130).
The
Council of Trent, however, maintains that this text has
indeed been made explicit by way of Church Tradition, which
"explains" (declarat):
...that
a thorough examination of conscience is absolutely necessary
so as not to let anyone conscious of having a mortal sin
staining his soul (and even though he deems himself truly
contrite) receive Holy Communion without having first
availed himself of sacramental confession.
At
any rate, the..:
...theological
truth which has never been brought up for discussion...
...upon
which, according to Sirboni, canon 916 of the 1983 Code
of Canon Law would seem to be based, is not only very
questionable, but is, in fact, indeed quite disputed and
is not at all according to the common opinion of the majority
of theologians.
This
common judgment of theologians according to which the obligation
of receiving Holy Communion in the state of grace acquired
through sacramental confession is commanded by God, is confirmed
by the fact that, in order to be excused from it, the Church
as always demanded and insisted on nothing less than a true
case of "urgent necessity." In fact, in a case
of necessity or in a case of physical or moral impossibility,
divine law, be it positive or natural-positive, ceases to
bind. This is not the case, however, of the negative natural
law: "Do not steal," "Do not kill,"
etc., which forbids intrinsically evil actions.13
And, in fact, it is in the sense of (urgent) "necessity"
that the Council of Trent pronounced itself definitively.
Also, for nearly two thousand years, this was the meaning
of the Church Tradition favored and adopted.
A
SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS LUTHERANISM
This
tradition of the Church was solemnly defended and confirmed
by the Council of Trent against Luther who, contending that
the Holy Eucharist effects the remission of mortal sins
as well (cf., DS 1655) repudiated:
...the
whole of Christian Tradition which, based as it is on
the particularly precise affirmations of I Cor. 11:29,
imposes the absolute necessity of abstaining from receiving
Holy Communion when one has the moral certainty of being
in mortal sin.14
We
always remained faithful to this Catholic tradition until
Vatican II (1962-65). Following this Council, on the contrary,
we now have this 1983 Code of Canon Law which, in
canon 916, slides down the slippery slope from "urgent
necessity" to the lower regions of "grave reason."
And now, here we have Sirboni who, in his answer, is sliding
yet further down when he declares that canon 916 now means:
If
a person finds himself in the impossibility of going to
confession [a person in the state of mortal sin], he may
yet [even without a "grave reason"] receive
Holy Communion by first making a perfect act of contrition
[without a firm resolution of going to sacramental confession
as soon as possible.]
Following
this, in actual practice, however, this sliding towards
Lutheranism has, for many years now, become more and more
obvious: everyone seems to be going to Holy Communion, yet
exceedingly few people avail themselves of sacramental confession
nowadays (there where confessionals still exist).
THEY
EAT AND DRINK TO THEIR OWN CONDEMNATION
Unwittingly,
Sirboni himself (in Vita Pastorale, No.4, 1992) exemplified
all of this when he published a letter sent to him by a
Sicilian priest, Don Francesco Amato who wrote:
Let
me inform you of two events which to my mind, are nothing
less than dramatic, to say the least. First: three years
ago, I flew to Toronto, Canada as a guest of emigrants
from the region where I carry on my ministry. They prepared
a great welcome for me with a community Mass followed
by community banquet. There were approximately seventy
faithful at that Mass and, to my joy, everyone received
Holy Communion. Later, I asked some of them if and when
they had gone to confession. They answered, to my anguish
and desolation, that in Canada people are not in the habit
of going to confession, and that they, indeed, have not
confessed their sins for many, many years.
The
second episode happened only a few days ago. I was to
celebrate the anniversary Mass for the repose of the soul
of one of my parishioners. Amongst those present was
the sister of the deceased, a former parishioner of mine
who had flown in from Australia. All of the relatives
of the deceased had gone to confession before Mass, but
not the Australian. Shortly after Mass, this lady came
to greet me in the sacristy, admitting: "Back there
in Australia, everyone receives Holy Communion without
ever going to confession. I, myself, have not done so
once in the last 25 years."
But
it is no longer necessary to go to Canada or to fly in from
Australia. Things are just as awful in Italy and parish
priests are the first to push their sheep onto this slippery
slope. We ourselves, on at least two occasions and in two
different cities, have heard the celebrant invite all of
those present, without any discrimination whatsoever, to
come and receive Holy Communion. One of the two priests
scrupulously specified "even if you have not been to
confession." To this, the other priest added, with
great warmth, to go to confession only if one has committed
"a sin of a truly very grave nature."
And
here is Sirboni's answer to that deeply concerned priest
in Sicily:
The
practice of these last few decades which has been promoted
by the conciliar reforms calls for "less confession
and for more conversion" even though it does not
authorize [a lesser evil!] the abolition of the sacrament
of confession of which man will always stand in need,
at least for, the sake of checking and verifying the sincerity
of his contrition [and not to be forgiven by God]. Besides,
Church law requires whoever is conscious of being in mortal
sin to have recourse to sacramental confession at least
once a year.
It
is quite evident from all of this that Sirboni does not
consider these two episodes to be in any way "sensational"
or "dramatic." No, he sees them as being normal
or nearly so in the present state of the Church. He also
views these two cases as being more in conformity with the
Italian priest's concerns as he is faced with:
...the
practice of these last few decades which has been promoted
by the conciliar reforms..
..thanks
to which all manner of sacrileges are seen to have greatly
increased while countless souls are now:
...eating
and drinking judgment [condemnation] to themselves, not
discerning the Body of the Lord.15
Augustinus
___________________________________________________________________
1.
Summa Theologica, III, Q79, A.5
2.
Summa Theologica, Ill, Q79,
A.3, ad.2
3.
Summa Theologica, Ill, Q80,
A.4 and 5
4.
Theologia moralis, 'De Eucharistia," No.255
5.
Theologia moralis, Vol.lI, p.109, 1901
6.
Lanza-Palazzini, Principi di theologia moralis,
vol.IlI, p.168, ed. Studium, Rome
7. See
Fr. Augustine Lehmkuhl, op. cit.; F. Cappello, De
Sacramentis, Naz, Dictionnaire de droit canonique
8.
Sess. XIII, chap. VII, can.7
9. Theologia
moralis De Eucharistia, no.256
10. Lanza-Palazzine,
Principi di Theologia morale Sacramentale e Vita sacramentale,
Vol.IlI, ed. Studium, Rome, p.126.
11. F.M.
Cappello, SJ. Tractatus canonica-moralis, De Sacramentis,
Marietti, 1945, p.402
12. V.H.
Noddin, SJ.; Summa Theologiae moralis, Vol.I,1, Ill,
q.8
13.
In the Dizionario di Diritto Canonico (Dictionary
of Canon Law) headed by Naz (t.IlI col.1129 sq.)
14.
Tito Cento, O.P., in La Somma Teologica by the Italian
Dominicans, vol.XXVIlI, p.232, note 1
15.
Cf. St. Paul [I Cor. 11:29]
Summa
Theologica, Part
III, Q.80, A.4
In
this sacrament [of the Holy Eucharist], as in the others,
that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the
sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament…one
which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself;
while the other is signified but not contained, namely,
Christ’s mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints.
Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby
that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His
members; and this is done by living faith, which no one
has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that
whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is
guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege,
because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins
mortally. –[Summa
Theologica, III, Q.80, A.4;corpus]
Summa
Theologica, Part III, Q.79, A.3
It
is written (I Cor.11:29): He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself:
and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary:
He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of
sin or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such
a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e., damnation, unto
himself. Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking
the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness
of his sin.
I
answer that, The power of this sacrament can be considered
in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament
has from Christ’s Passion the power of forgiving all sins,
since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness
of sins.
Secondly,
it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of
the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in
him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament.
Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an
obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since
he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because
he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not to eat
the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined
to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ,
which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains
an attachment towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said
in the book De Eccles. Dogmat: If the soul leans towards
sin, it is burdened rather than purified from partaking
of the Eucharist. Hence, in him who is conscious of
mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness
of sin.
Nevertheless
this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two
ways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but
in desire; as when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly,
when received by one mortal sin of which he is not conscious,
and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was
not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching this
sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of
charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness
of sin. – [Summa Theologica, III, Q.79. A.3, sed contra;corpus]
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
